Quote:
Originally Posted by DuckieTigger
*sigh*
Can we please stop pretending that resolution doesn't matter? The argument that it may matter on lcd, but not on eink is absurd. It matters on both. It even matters way past the point of your eyes beeing able to distinguish individual pixels.
|
There is definitely a difference - on an LCD you can see the grid outlining each individual screen pixel if you look closely - not just a jaggedness to curves and lines at odd angles, but a grid outlining each individual pixel even in regions of solid color.
I don't know what the DPI of my little Kobo Mini is, though I'm sure it is much lower than newer and more expensive readers. But I know that even with two rather weak (probably 3x) magnifying glasses staged together I can't tell that there are pixels at all. Partially, I suspect this is because the pixels aren't square edged as on an LCD but possibly a bit rounded/blob like? But I don't really know - I just know that as far as my eyes (well, eye actually) can tell, the resolution might as well be infinite.
I'd imagine there are plenty of improvements to be made to eink - a whiter, less greyish screen would be nice, faster screen updating would be nice. But if you doubled or tripled the resolution, would it actually look any different without a microscope?
On the other hand, the LCD screen I'm looking at now is on a netbook and has a 1024x600 resolution. I'd guess you would have to at least double the resolution in each direction before it would be impossible for me to see pixels with the unaided eye.